Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from an order dated 3 October 2022 passed by the 11th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, rejecting the appellant-plaintiff's application for temporary injunction (Exhibit-5) and allowing the respondents-defendants' application (Exhibit-34) granting temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from obstructing the defendants' possession of the suit property. The appellant, M/s. Nanded City Development and Construction Company Ltd., is developing a large township named 'Nanded City' on a land parcel of 274.6977 hectares in Village-Nanded and 4.5847 hectares in Village-Khadakwasla, pursuant to a notification dated 23 January 2008 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. A joint development agreement dated 20 April 2011 was executed with the respondents-defendants in respect of land admeasuring 2100 sq.mtrs (21 Ares) at Survey No.57, Hissa No.3A (Part) and Survey No.57, Hissa No.5(Part) at Village-Nanded. A power of attorney of the same date was also executed by the defendants in favor of the plaintiff, empowering it to develop the suit property. Under the agreement, the defendants' consideration is proportionate to their land holding of 0.08% of the total project. The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 1245 of 2021 seeking declaration and injunction, alleging that the defendants were obstructing development. The trial court rejected the plaintiff's injunction application and granted injunction in favor of the defendants, holding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case and that the defendants were in possession. The High Court found that the trial court's findings were perverse and ignored crucial documents. The court noted that the development agreement and power of attorney clearly showed the plaintiff's right to develop and possess the property. The court also observed that the plaintiff had constructed a road on the suit property, indicating its possession. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff as the project was a large township and the defendants' holding was minimal. The court held that the trial court erred in granting injunction without considering the plaintiff's prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and dismissed the defendants' application for injunction. The court directed the trial court to expedite the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case was perverse as it ignored the development agreement, power of attorney, and the fact that the plaintiff had constructed a road on the suit property. The court held that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case for being in possession and developing the property. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff/developer as the project was a large township development and the defendants' land holding was only 0.08%. Granting injunction would stall the entire project, causing irreparable loss to the plaintiff and public interest. (Paras 16-18) C) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Irreparable Loss - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court failed to consider that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if injunction was granted, as the development project would be stalled. The court held that the defendants failed to prove their possession over the suit property, and the plaintiff's possession through the agreement and power of attorney was sufficient. (Paras 19-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in granting temporary injunction in favor of the defendants/landowners restraining the plaintiff/developer from obstructing their possession of the suit property, and in rejecting the plaintiff's application for injunction.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 3 October 2022 is set aside. The application at Exhibit-34 filed by the defendants is dismissed. The application at Exhibit-5 filed by the plaintiff is allowed, and the defendants are restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's development of the suit property. The trial court is directed to expedite the suit.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- possession
- development agreement
- power of attorney
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
